j am acad relig 2011 geen 58 89

8/12/2019 J Am Acad Relig 2011 Geen 58 89

1/32

Fair Trade and Reversal ofFortune: Kr

s.n. a and Mahavra in

the Hindu and Jaina TraditionsJonathan Geen*

Hindu and Jaina mythological texts share many literary characters,some of which were clearly borrowed from one another. This paperexamines two such cases of borrowing: the incorporation of the Hinducharacter Kr

s.n. a into the Jaina tradition and the incorporation of the

Jaina savior Mahavra by Hindus. While the Hindu mythological tra-dition underwent subtle changes as a result of adopting Mahavra, theincorporation of Kr

s.n. a had a profound effect on Jaina mythology. In

fact, as Jaina mythology developed, Kr

s.n. a came to be seen as a sort of

Mahavra-in-the-making, while Mahavra was described as a Krs.n. a-of-the-past, implying a chronologically shifted equivalence between them.The original impetus for borrowing one anothers popular charactersseems to have been a desire to discredit them. Over time, however, thefortunes of these characters in their new literary environment steadilyrose, and they managed to take on lives of their own.

WHEN VIEWING RELIGIOUS TEXTS from a literary point ofview, it is fair to say that some characters get around more than others.Moses, for example, is a character of importance in Jewish, Christian,and Islamic scripture, though the interpretation of his role tends todiffer from one tradition to the next. In some cases, religious traditions

*Jonathan Geen, Associate Professor of Religious Studies, Department of Philosophy andReligious Studies, Kings University College, London, Ontario, Canada. E-mail: [email protected].

Journal of the American Academy of Religion, March 2011, Vol. 79, No. 1, pp. 5889doi:10.1093/jaarel/lfq059Advance Access publication on November 11, 2010 The Author 2010. Published by Oxford University Press, on behalf of the American Academy ofReligion. All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]

atBirlaInstituteofTechnology&Science,PilanionFebruary11,2014

http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom
http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/http://jaar.oxfordjournals.org/


2/32

utilize such shared characters to highlight doctrinal differences, suchas the case of Jesuss relationship to God: one traditions doctrine of amonotheistic Trinity (Christianity) is viewed by another (Islam) as

evidence of polytheistic leanings. A similar phenomenon is witnessed inscriptures originating in the common milieu of South Asia, wheremany popular characters are shared among the Hindus, Buddhists,Jainas, Sikhs, and even Muslims. At times, these shared charactersbecome focal points of doctrinal disagreements, often resulting inremarkably rich character development. In this paper, I examine themanner in which the Hindu character Kr

s.n. a was transformed into a

distinctly Jaina character, and the ensuing impact this had upon thedevelopment of Jainism itself. By way of a counter example, I also

examine the fate that befell the Jaina savior Mahavra1 when he wasbrought into the Hindu tradition. As will become evident, what beganin both cases as polemical and slanderous inversions of the originalcharacters ends with relatively positive depictions. The Hindus andJainas may have set out to transform one anothers popular characters,but were in turn transformed themselves.

As literary figures, it is difficult to think of two characters lessalike than Kr

s.n. a, as portrayed in the Hindu tradition, and Mahavra,

as depicted by Jainas. While Mahavra is the very soul of strict

ascetic discipline, Krs.n. a is playful, mischievous, libidinous, andfrequently a cheat. Despite their differences, however, both are soter-iological figures in their respective traditions: following the exampleof Mahavra constitutes the path to liberation for Jainas, while manyHindus hope to gain salvation through their unswerving and lovingdevotion to Kr

s.n. a.

As a rule, descriptions of Jainas in Hindu scripture tend to beexceedingly unflattering.2 One prominent illustration of this is found inthe Hindu puran. ic story of Vis.n. us incarnation (avatara) as a false

ascetic, who taught Jaina and Buddhist doctrine to powerful demons inorder to delude and weaken them. After deceiving the demons (whowere, according to plan, promptly defeated by the gods), this avatarawas to remain in hiding until the advent of the morally degenerate KaliAge, at which time he was to begin his false teachings again amongmen. In the earliest extant story of this avatara (Vis.n. u Puran. a 3.173.18), it is evident that Hindus were unconcerned with clearly delineat-ing Buddhist, Jaina, and Materialist doctrine, and tended to lump them

1Mahavra is, however, rarely identified by name in Hindu texts.2See, e.g.,Dundas (1992: 1).

Geen: Fair Trade and Reversal of Fortune 59


http://

jaar.oxfordjournals.org/

Downloadedfrom


3/32

together as heretical teachings. Nevertheless, inasmuch as Mahavramay be considered the founder of Jainism,3 this false avataramay beseen as an example of a shared character among Hindus and Jainas:

one traditions savior becomes anothers charlatan. But the later historyof this avatara displays a discernible softening of this slanderousinversion.

A similar attempt at inversion may have been the motivation for theJainass incorporation of the popular Hindu character/deity Kr

s.n. a into

their own tradition. Such a notion was proposed by P. S. Jaini, who,commenting upon the incorporation of Rama (of the Ramayan. a) andKr

s.n. a into the Jaina tradition, stated:

in retelling their versions [of the Hindu epics] the Jaina authorsshrewdly made a major change that was to accomplish at a singlestroke both the elevation of Rama to the status of a Jaina saint4 andthe consignment of Kr

s.n. a to hell. (1993: 213)

It is true that the Jainas stripped Krs.n. a of the divine status he holds in

the Hindu tradition, and upon his death, the Jaina Krs.n. a did indeed

go to hell.5 But like the false avatara in the Hindu tradition, the ulti-mate fate of Kr

s.n. a in the Jaina tradition was to markedly improve. In

the end, as I hope to demonstrate, the Jaina authors paid Krs.n. a aremarkably high compliment.

MAHVRA AND THE FALSE AVATRAOF VIS. N.U

As representatives of the heterodox renunciatory ascetics orraman. as, both Jainas and Buddhists were openly critical of Hindusunquestioning belief in the authority of the Veda, its attending brahmi-

nical caste and

arama systems,

6

and most particularly its animal

3Whether or not we should consider Mahavra to be the historical founder of Jainism, it is likelythat Hindus would have done so.

4Historically, the earliest extant Jaina version of the Ramayan. a story (i.e., Vimalasris third-century Pamacariya) predates the earliest extant Jaina version of the Kr

s.n. a-cycle/Mahabharata

(i.e., Punnat.a Jinasenas eighth-century Harivam. apuran. a) by about five hundred years. Theglorification of Rama is clear throughout the Pamacariya, and Vimalasri even modified thefamiliar Hindu story so that Laks.man. a, rather than Rama, killed their adversary Ravan. a, therebyallowing Rama to attain liberation at the end of his life while Laks.man. a was consigned to hell.

5AsDundas (2000:95) points out, this fact was known even to Abul Fazl, personal advisor to

the Mughal Emperor Akbar.6The Hindu arama (stages of life) system certainly developed in the post-Vedic period, butnevertheless became a part of orthodox brahminical culture. For an in-depth discussion of thearama system, seeOlivelle (1993).

Journal of the American Academy of Religion60


http://


Downloadedfrom


4/32

sacrifices.7 In retaliation for such raman. ic criticism, Hindus counteredwith the story of Vis.n. us avataraas a false ascetic.

8 The earliest versionof this story is found in the Vis.n. u Puran. a,

9 though as Wendy Doniger

has suggested, this story may be viewed merely as a pointed adaptationof many earlier stories in which the gods actively tricked or deludedtheir rival demons in order to gain or maintain superiority. The inno-

vation here is that the deluder of the demons takes the form of a Jainaascetic, and then a Buddhist monk. This false ascetic is popularlyreferred to in Vis.n. us avatara as the Buddha, but it is clear in earlypuran. ic variants of the story that the false ascetic is as much Jaina asBuddhist, and is intended to represent an amalgamation of heretics.10

In the context11 of the story, the raison dtreof the false avatarais

to trick the powerful demons into abandoning orthodox Hindu (Vedic)religion, thereby weakening them enough for the gods to win backcosmic superiority. The gods and demons, we are told, had beenengaged in a protracted battle in which the gods were defeated. Thegods then went to Vis.n. u and beseeched him to find a way they couldagain be victorious:

Thus addressed, Lord Vis.n. u emitted from his body Mayamoha [theMagic Deluder], gave it to them, and said this to those best of gods:

This Mayamoha will delude all those demons; then, being excludedfrom the path of the Vedas, they will be vulnerable to slaughter.(Vis.n. u Puran. a3.17.413.17.42)

12

7Medieval Jainas promoted the idea that the Hindu Brahmin class, their sacred Veda, andtheir Vedic animal sacrifices all resulted from a corruption of the true (Jaina) religious path set outby R

s.abha, the firsttrthankaraof the present epoch (Jaini 1993: 234ff).

8For a wide-ranging and comprehensive discussion of this false avatara, see OFlaherty (1976:174211).

9The Vis.n. u Puran. a may be roughly assigned to the fifth-century CE. For a brief discussion of

this dating, seeMatchett (2001: 1618).10TheVis.n. u Puran. a, being composed/compiled during the Hindu revivalof the Gupta Period,is naturally concerned with the denunciation of all heretics, though the Buddhists were, at thistime, typically perceived by Hindus as a greater threat than the Jainas.

11Ostensibly, the Vis.n. u Puran. a consists of the teachings of the sage Paraara to his pupilMaitreya (for a complete English translation, see Wilson 1961). In Book 3, Paraara describes thefourfold division of the Vedas by Vyasa, and proceeds to discuss some of the Vedic ritesincumbent upon the upper three classes of society, ending with a discussion of sacrificial offeringsto the ancestors (raddha) with various foods, including the flesh of various animals. In 3.16, someof the things that can nullify a raddha rite are enumerated, including the ceremony beingobserved by a heretic. In 3.17, Maitreya asks Paraara to explain the nature and practices of aheretic, and Paraara, relating a story he heard Vasis.t.ha tell Bhs.ma, narrates the story of the false

avatara.12ity ukto bhagavam.

s tebhyo mayamoham.

arratah. | samutpadya dadau vis.n. uh. praha cedam.

surottaman || mayamoho yam akhilan daityam.

s tan mohayis.yati | tato vadhya bhavis.yantivedamargabahis.kr

tah. ||.



http://


Downloadedfrom


5/32

Mayamoha, taking first the form of a naked and bald (digambaromun. d. o;Vis.n. u Puran. a3.18.2) Jaina ascetic, was successful in convertingmany demons through a rather confused argument likely meant to rep-

resent the Jaina doctrine of anekantavada, in which anything may belegitimately viewed from more than one vantage point.13 Thereafter,the deluder took on the form of a Buddhist monk, and argued for non-

violence and for reason over revelation.The monks argument begins as follows: O Demons, if you have a

desire for Heaven or Nirvan. a, then realize that you must put an endto such wicked practices as slaughtering animals (Vis.n. u Puran. a3.18.17).14 It is interesting that the argument for non-violence is placedin the mouth of a Buddhist rather than a Jaina,15 but certainly both tra-

ditions were radically opposed to animal sacrifices. Mayamoha then setabout weakening the demonsfaith in the efficacy of Vedic sacrifice; hismain argument, repeated in several forms, was that simple ritual actionscould not possibly have the sorts of real-world effects claimed by theVedas. Vedic tradition holds, for example, that an animal slaughtered insacrifice gets direct entry into heaven. Extrapolating from this principle,the monk asks: If the attainment of heaven is assured for an animalslaughtered in a sacrifice, how is it that the sacrificer does not thereforekill his own father [thereby ensuring his father entry into heaven]?

(Vis.n. u Puran. a3.18.28).16 The repeated implication is that Vedic sacrifi-cial theology cannot withstand even the most superficial examination.

Having made several such critiques, undermining the demonsfaithin the infallible nature of the revealed Vedas, the monk concludes:True words, O Great Demons, do not just fall from the sky; onlywords based upon sound reasoning are to be accepted by me andothers such as yourselves (Vis.n. u Puran. a 3.18.31).

17 Through the useof such arguments, both Jaina and Buddhist, Mayamoha finally con-

vinced the demons to abandon the Vedas, thereby ensuring the desired

result: Then, O Twice-born, the battle of the gods and demons

13For a discussion of anekantavada, and its related doctrines of nayavada and syadvada, seePadmarajiah (2004: 269378).

14svargartham.

yadi vo vacha nirvan. artham athasurah. | tadalam.

paughatadi dus.t.adharmam.

nibodhata||.15The practice of non-violence is certainly taken to a greater extreme in Jainism than Buddhism,

and medieval Jaina philosophers attempted to demonstrate that the so-called practice of non-

violence by Buddhists was flawed. SeeGranoff (1992).16nihatasya paor yaje svargapraptir yads.yate|svapita yajamanena kim.

nu tasman na hanyate||.17na hy aptavada nabhaso nipatanti mahasurah. | yuktimadvacanam

.grahyam

.mayanyai ca

bhavadvidhaih. ||.



http://


Downloadedfrom


6/32

resumed, and those demons,who now rejected the true path, were killedby the gods(Vis.n. u Puran. a3.18.34;emphasis mine).

18

It is clear from this account that the teachings of the heretical

raman. as were invented as a clever device to lure the demons awayfrom the Vedic tradition;19 it is, at the same time, a denunciation of theraman. as and a glorification of the true path of Vedic sacrifice.

20 Inthis context, arguments against animal sacrifices are deluded, and theteacher of such heresy a crafty swindler. Having accomplished hisimmediate goal, this false avatara was instructed by Vis.n. u to go intohiding until the Kali Age, when he was to begin his heretical Jaina andBuddhist teachings again among men: we must infer, therefore, that his-torical raman. ic teachers such as Mahavra and the Buddha were in fact

the magical manifestations of the false avataraMayamoha.21

18tato devasuram.

yudham.

punar evabhavad dvija | hata ca te sura devaih.sanmargaparipanthinah. ||.

19It is perhaps worth noting here the warning given by Manu in Manava Dharmaastra2.102.11: Scripture should be recognized as Veda, and tradition as Law Treatise. These twoshould never be called into question in any matter, for it is from them that the Law has shinedforth. If a twice-born disparages these two by relying on the science of logic, he ought to beostracized by good people as an infidel and a denigrator of the Veda(Olivelle 2004: 23).

20In aivavariants, the story of Vis.n. us falseavatarais absorbed into the ancient story ofivas

destruction of the three cities (tripura) ruled by powerful demons. The demons populating thesecities were invincible due primarily to being devotees ofiva, though it is said that the false asceticdid bring an end to Vedic sacrifices there as well. See, e.g., iva Puran. a (Rudrasam

.hita:

Yuddhakhan. d. a 1970);Linga Puran. a (1973: 1.711.73).21Viewed historically, we can see that the story of the false avatara is designed to explain the

origin of heretics that were already clearly in existence (e.g., Buddhists, Jainas), but one may wellask why, theoretically, Vis.n. u would want to produce such heretical lineages in the first place.While the Hindus do not directly answer this question (at least not to my knowledge), they doinclude a prediction of the ultimate fate of the heretics, which again is related to an avatara ofVis.n. u. Kr

s.n. a is typically listed as the eighth, and the false avatara as the ninth, of Vis.n. us ten

major incarnations. The tenth and final avatarais known as Kalkin, who, it is said, will bring thedegenerate Kali Age to a close by slaying all of the barbarians and heretics. Wendy Doniger has

proposed (OFlaherty 1976: 200) that the Kalkin avataramay have predated and even inspired thestory of the falseavatara. If so, this may explain why the falseavatarawas not originally restrictedto the Buddha but was intended to encompass all heretical doctrines. Whatever the case, thestories of these final two avatarasproduce an interesting result: not only will Vis.n. u, as Kalkin, slayall the heretics of the Kali Age, but it was in fact Vis.n. u himself, as Mayamoha, who wasresponsible for their heretical doctrines. If nothing else, this strips the raman. as of anyindependent agency in their beliefs and practices. The medieval Jaina atrujayamahatmya ofDhanevara, in discussing the duh. s.ama stage in the present avasarpin. (equivalent to the KaliAge), mentions a prophecy of a King named Kalkin (or Kalkiraja) who will, during this degeneratetime, persecute the Jaina religion (Burgess 1901: 307308). On the basis of both Hindu puran. icand Jaina sources, Jayaswal attempted to prove that the Kalkin avatarawas actually describing thehistorical king of the early sixth century, Vis.n. uvardhana Yaodharma, defeater of Mihirakula

(Jayaswal 1917), while Pathak subsequently argued more forcefully that Kalkiraja was actuallyMihirakula himself (Pathak 1918: 1819). As Kalkin may have been modeled, theologically at least,on the Buddhists future Buddha Maitreya (OFlaherty 1976: 200), it seems probable that the lasttwo of Vis.n. us ten famousavataraswere heavily influenced by the raman. ic traditions.



http://


Downloadedfrom


7/32


8/32

In Bhagavata 2.7, a brief reference is made to an unnamed avatarawho is said to assume a disguise that captures the hearts anddeludes the minds of the demons and then teaches them heretical

doctrines in depth.25 Bhagavata 10.40 includes a hymn to Krs.n. a,sung by Akrra, that refers to Krs.n. as many avataras; 10.40.22

states: Praise to the Pure Buddha, deluder of the demons.26 AtBhagavata 11.4.22, we find the unnamed buddhavatara described ascleverly deluding with various doctrines those who performed sacri-fices but were unworthy to do so.27

The Jaina tradition does, however, pop up in a curious and fas-cinating way in the Bhagavata, though now entirely divorced fromthe Buddha avatara. One of the minor incarnations (am

.avatara) of

Vis.n. u discussed in the Bhagavata is a man named R s.abha,28 more

commonly known as the first Jaina savior of the current worldepoch,29 co-opted here by Hindus as the founder of a yogic-ascetictradition.30 In the Bhagavata, the tradition founded by R

s.abha is

not a false tradition designed to delude anyone, but a fullylegitimate path for ascetics. There is, however, a description of howthis legitimate path would become perverted in later times.Bhagavata 5.6.9 contains a prediction that, in the Kali Age, a kingnamed Arhat,31 having heard tales of R

s.abhas ascetic path and

wishing to adopt it, will abandon the path of his true religion

25devadvis.am.

. . .| lokan ghnatam.

mativimohamatipralobham.

ves.am.

vidhaya bahu bhas.yataaupadharmyam ||(2.7.37).

26namo buddhayauddhaya daityadanavamohine| (10.40.22ab).27vadair vimohayati yajakr

to tadarhan(11.4.22 c).

28The Bhagavata is not the earliest Hindu puran. a to mention R

s.abha (see, e.g., Vis.n. u Puran. a2.1), but it seems to be the only one in which R

s.abha is grantedavatarastatus.

29For a discussion of R

s.abha in the Jaina tradition, see below.30

The purpose of this avatarais explicitly stated in Bhagavata 5.3.20, where he is described ashaving a pure or white body (uklaya tanuva) and having a desire to establish the religious paths(dharman darayitukama) of naked (vataraananam), celibate (rdhvamanthinam

.), mendicant

sages (raman. anam rs.n. am). He is also described (5.5.28) as embodying the Paramaham

.sa path

(paramaham.

syadharmam upaiks.aman. ah. ). The goal of his raman. a dharmawas, in typical Hindufashion, attainment of the unending joy ofbrahman(brahmasaukhyam

.anantam; 5.5.1), where it

is clear that brahman is one and the same as Vis.n. u. Bhagavata 5 contains R

s.abhas discourse onthe path to liberation from sam

.sara. Interestingly, while he praises both the Vedas and the

Brahmin class, he explicitly prescribes neither Vedic sacrifices nor the practice of non-violence. Weshould note, however, that while serving as king, R

s.abha did perform sacrifices according to the

Vedas (5.4.17), and it is said (5.5.28) that when renouncing the world he fixed the [Vedic]ahavanya fire within himself (atmany aropitahavanyo), implying a sort of upanis.adic

internalization of Vedic sacrifice. For a more detailed discussion of this minor avatara in theBhagavata Puran. a, seeJaini (1977).

31The termarhat (worthy one), though commonly used by both Jainas and Buddhists, is oftenreserved for the Jainas in the Hindupuran. as.



http://


Downloadedfrom


9/32

(svadharmapatha) and propagate the unbecoming and wicked pathof heretics (kupatham

.pas.an. d. am asamajasam

.).32

The Bhagavatas stories of R

s.abha and King Arhat appear to

provide a concession to Jainas that falls somewhere between theoriginal, slanderous story of the false avatara on the one hand, andthe later glorification of the Buddhaavataraon the other: a Jaina savior(i.e., R

s.abha, now in the form of a minor avatara of Vis.n. u) is given

credit for propagating a legitimate ascetic path similar in descriptionto the practices of Jaina ascetics, but the later manifestation of this path(i.e., in the Kali Age) is said to have become perverted and corrupt.33

While Mahavra as an individual is never embraced in the manner thatthe Buddha came to be,34 the story of the R

s.abha avatararepresents a

discernible improvement in his stature: instead of implying, as the falseavatarastory does, that Mahavra was a mere magical charlatan createdby Vis.n. u to delude demons and men, he now may be viewed as theheir to a legitimate ascetic path that had, sadly, become corrupt.

Finally, it should not escape our notice that, in the original story of thefalseavatara, it was ironically the relinquishing of slaughter (i.e., of Vedicanimal sacrifices) that rendered the demons susceptible to slaughter. Thatis, the original story of the false avataradid not present Hindus with anypersuasive ethical argument in favor of animal sacrifices, but rather

implied only that the violence of sacrifice enhanced the effectiveness ofviolence in battle. Thus, when the Buddha avatarawas later extolled forhis deep compassion, nothing but the Hindusassessment of the situationhad changed: the anti-sacrificial doctrine of the Jaina-Buddhist falseavataramerely shifted from heretical to ethical.35 What had been orig-inally depicted as deluded came to be viewed as compassionate.

32

This story may have been specifically directed at the ninth-century Ras.t.rakut.a kingAmoghavars.a I, who converted from thevais.n. avato the Jaina tradition (Jaini 1977:331). As Jainipoints out, the main perversion of R

s.abhas legitimate path, represented by the heretical Jaina

tradition, is the vehement anti-Brahmin and anti-sacrifice stance. Whereas Jaina texts such asJinesenas ninth-century dipuran. a and Hemacandras twelfth-century TPC depict animalsacrifice as being a perversion of the original Vedas (which they claim promoted strict non-violentpractices), the authors of the Bhagavata Puran. aclaim the opposite: the Jaina disdain for Brahminsand sacrifice represents the perversion.

33There are two good reasons why the authors of the story of this minor avatara in theBhagavata Puran. achose R

s.abha rather than Mahavra as their subject. The first, suggested byJaini

(1977:331), is that they may have been responding to the large and popular biography of R

s.abha(i.e., the dipuran. a) written by the ninth-century Digambara Jaina poet Jinasena. The second is

that Mahavra must surely have been associated already with pervertedpractices of the Kali Age.34As Jainism enjoyed increasing prosperity and royal patronage in the medieval period, Hindusmay not have been as inclined to embrace Mahavra in the way they did the Buddha.

35The Jainas are able to share in this triumph only vicariously.



http://


Downloadedfrom


10/32

The extent to which the story of the false avatara played a rolein this change of heart is impossible to gage. The historical develop-ment of a broad ethic of non-violence (ahim

.sa) across India in

general was a complex phenomenon,36 and Hindu texts from theancient upanis.ads to the medieval puran. as show signs of a growinguneasiness with Vedic animal sacrifices.37 Nevertheless, it is perhapsnot over-reaching to suggest that the raman. ic opposition to Vedicanimal sacrifice portrayed in the Vis.n. u Puran. a played some smallrole in promoting non-violence in the Hindu tradition (as the abovequotation from Jayadeva suggests), and it certainly facilitated thewholehearted embrace of the Buddha seen in the later vais.n. ava tra-dition. In any case, the historical trajectory taken by the false

avatara keenly displays how a character, once incorporated into areligious tradition, may subsequently develop in new and unexpectedways, and with hindsight, the brahminical authors of the originalfalse avatara story may have had second thoughts about allowingtheir opponents to make such a full-throated denunciation of Vedicanimal sacrifice in a Hindu text.

Before proceeding to a discussion of Krs.n. a in the Jaina tradition,

the seeming similarity between the tricky false ascetic Mayamoha, inhis role as Buddhist monk, and the Compassionate-Trickster Buddha

discussed by Sara McClintock in her essay in this issue, merits somecomment. On the one hand, as McClintock points out, the Buddha ofthe early Buddhist tradition was a somewhat liminal figure, who freelymade use of delusions and illusions in order to raise peoplesconscious-ness. It is this latter aspect that made his tricks compassionate.Mayamoha, on the other hand, another highly liminal figure, usedtricks of philosophy merely to delude the demons, leading to theirdefeat, and to delude the heretics of the Kali Age, whose defeat isassured by Vis.n. us futureavataraKalkin. From the point of view of the

gods, Mayamohas mission may have been one of compassion, but hiscompassion was in no way directed to those he deluded. It is unclearwhether or not the brahminic authors of the Vis.n. u Puran. a intention-ally co-opted and corrupted the Buddhas compassionate trickster-likequalities in order to further slander him, but the possibility isintriguing.

36See, e.g.,Alsdorf (1962),Schmidt (1968), andProudfoot (1987).37See, in particular,Schmidt (1968).



http://


Downloadedfrom


11/32

THE JAINA KR

S. N.A: A MAHVRA-IN-THE-MAKING

At some point in their history, perhaps shortly after they had

migrated west to the city of Mathur

a,38

Jainas began to incorporateKrs.n. a into their literary cast of characters. In order to make Kr

s.n. a their

own, Jainas had to contend not only with Krs.n. a himself but with a

number of significant theological issues associated with him. Themanner in which the Jainas dealt with some of the ancillary theologicalissues will be addressed below. First, however, I will discuss the ways inwhich Jainas transformed Kr

s.n. a, and how this Jaina Kr

s.n. a in turn

transformed Jainism. In order to contextualize the important positionafforded Kr

s.n. a in Jaina mythology, a brief description of the Jaina

Universal History

is required.

The Jaina Universal History

From the earliest extant Jaina texts,39 it is clear that Jainism wasoriginally an extremely strict, ascetically oriented renunciatory traditionthat had little patience with worldly life in any form. The life of ahouseholder was depicted in a very poor light, and many textual pas-sages were devoted to convincing monks who may have been tempted

to throw off the mantle of ascetic life and return to society that such acourse of action would be entirely futile. Not only does the violentnature of household life lead to future torments in hell, we are told, buthousehold life itself is fraught with troubles and travails.

This fact notwithstanding, Jaina monks and nuns relied upon thegenerosity of lay supporters for alms, and before long the Jaina attitudeto their laity softened to a considerable degree.40 Moreover, the fate ofburgeoning voluntary religious sects such as Buddhism and Jainismappears to have been, at least in part, in the hands of kings, whose royal

patronage (or lack thereof) could potentially make (or break) a tra-ditions survival. It should not surprise us, then, that the Jainas came tohonor not only their ascetic heroes and teachers (trthankaras), but alsolay supporters in the form of powerful worldly rulers, idealized as uni-

versal sovereigns (cakravartins).41

In the face of the Hindu Vedic tradition, which by the time Jainismrose to prominence in the sixth- to fifth-century BCE had an enormous

38Archeological evidence places a Jaina community in Mathura prior to the Common Era (see,

e.g.,Ghosh 1974: 4968).39That is, the first books of the caranga- andStrakrt

anga-stras.40For a discussion of this trend, seeJohnson (1995).41For a discussion of the role of cakravartinsin the Buddhist tradition, seeStrong (1989: 4456).



http://


Downloadedfrom


12/32

weight of ancient authority, alternative religious doctrines that were pre-sented as new had little chance of surviving beyond the lifetime oftheir charismatic founders.42 Thus, it again should not surprise us that

historicalraman. ic figures such as the Buddha and Mahavra were soonviewed by their followers merely as particular examples of a generaltype, and that in fact there had been, periodically, countless Buddhas ortrthankaras stretching back into a past without beginning. Accordingto this scheme, the raman. ic doctrines they taught were anything butnew.43 Jainas claimed that, in the land of Bharataks.etra (roughly synon-ymous with India), each world epoch (past, present and future) iswitness to a series of twenty-four trthankaras, and Mahavra, anundoubtedly historical figure, was said to be the twenty-fourth and final

trthankaraof the present world epoch.In an obvious parallel development, the Jainas likewise posited a

recurring series of half as many (i.e., twelve) cakravartins inBharataks.etra in each world epoch. The close connection between cak-ravartinsand trthankaras is highlighted by the fact that in the presentepoch, three cakravartins also became trthankaras in the same life-time.44 These two series of recurring personages became the basis forwhat has been dubbed the Jaina Universal History,which is a historyfocusing primarily upon the lives of the sixty-three great (maha-) or

illustrious (alaka-) persons (purus.ah. ) that appeared in the land ofBharataks.etra in the present world epoch. The twenty-four trthankaras(beginning with R

s.abha and ending with Mahavra)45 and twelvecakra-

vartins together comprise thirty-six of these alakapurus.as, leavingtwenty-seven so far unaccounted for.

The remaining twenty-seven alakapurus.as comprise nine triads,each containing one baladeva, one vasudeva, and one prativasudeva.The baladeva and vasudeva are always heroic brothers, and the pra-tivasudeva (i.e., anti-vasudeva) is a wicked rival who is invariably killed

42The attribution of a new text or tradition to an ancient authority is commonplace in theHindu tradition. For example, whereas the earlier dharmastratexts were presented as scholarlytreatises, wherein various scholarly opinions were provided, the author of the later ManavaDharmaastra(i.e., Laws of Manu) attributes his text to the creator god Brahma himself. See, e.g.,Olivelle (2004: xxivxxv).

43I do not wish to suggest that this was the only reason for the development of stories of pastBuddhas ortrthankaras, but it was undoubtedly one important reason.

44In their same lifetime, the fifth, sixth, and seventh cakravartins (anti, Kunthu, and Ara)became the sixteenth, seventeenth, and eighteenth trthankaras.

45

Whereas scholars may be tempted to view Mahavra as the founder of the Jaina tradition, he isviewed by Jainas as being the last in a long line of cosmically significant persons, not entirelyunlike the Islamic view of the prophet Muhammad, who is seen less as the founder of Islam thanas the seal of a long line of prophets.



http://


Downloadedfrom


13/32

in battle by the vasudeva. Furthermore, each vasudeva, due in part tothis violent slaying, will be reborn in hell. The otherwise-unique charac-ters we know as Kr

s.n. a Vasudeva and his brother Baladeva from the

Hindu tradition are considered by Jainas to have been merely the ninthand final vasudeva and baladeva of the current world epoch.46 That is,the Jainas not only incorporated Kr

s.n. a and Baladeva (and their rival

Jarasandha) into their mythology, but also expanded them into recur-ring character types to be numbered among the other alakapurus.as (i.e., the trthankaras and cakravartins).47 Thus, the incorporation ofKr

s.n. a into the mythological history of the Jaina tradition must be

viewed as a rather momentous event.These new categories of baladevas, vasudevas, and prativasudevas

also allowed the Jainas to neatly incorporate the Ramayan. as heroesRama and Laks.man. a, and their rival Ravan. a, into their UniversalHistory: Rama was identified as the eighth baladeva, Laks.man. a theeighth vasudeva, and Ravan. a the eighth prativasudeva. In this fashion,the Jainas absorbed the Hindu epics Ramayan. a and Mahabharata intotheir own mythological tradition, and still had room left over to posit,as it were, seven earlier epic stories of the present world epoch. Theexpansion of Kr

s.n. a, his brother, and his rival into archetypal categories

had the effect of removing the uniqueness of the Hindu characters,

but I am not sure this was the explicit intention. Rather, it appears thatthis process of character expansion was simply the way the Jainascame to view the universe: any special, illustrious person, whethertrthankaraor vasudeva, was necessarily only one in an infinite series.

Why, exactly, the Jainas incorporated Krs.n. a into their own cast of

characters is a matter of speculation. Krs.n. as behavior in Hindu

mythology is scarcely a model of ideal Jaina conduct, nor do the Jainastransform Kr

s.n. a into an ideal Jaina.

48 On this issue, there have beentwo generally held opinions: (1) the Jainas incorporated into their own

texts characters popular in the Hindu tradition (and especially those ofthe Ramayan. a and Mahabharata) in order to satisfy their laitys desire

46In general, the archetypal and iconographical descriptions of all the Jaina baladevas conformto a description of Kr

s.n. as brother Baladeva as found in the Hindu tradition, and all the vasudevas

to that of the Hindu Krs.n. a. This pattern generally holds true even for versions of the Jaina

Ramayan. a, in which the roles of baladeva and vasudeva are filled by Rama and Laks.man. a,respectively.

47For a discussion of the historical development of the baladevas,vasudevas, and prativasudevas,

seeGeen (2009).48In Hemacandras TPC, all of the vasudevas, Krs.n. a included, adopt right belief, which is

only the first step on the path to Jaina liberation, and this only after they have killed theirrespectiveprativasudeva.



http://


Downloadedfrom


14/32

for entertaining storiesfailure to do so might have left the Jaina laitydangerously open to conversion by Hindus;49 or (2) the Hindus, Jainas,and Buddhists all drew upon a stock of ancient narrative literature that

was largely non-sectarian, and each tradition modified the stories, creat-ing a collection of sectarian versions.50 There is likely some measure oftruth in both of these suppositions, varying in degree on a case-by-casebasis. Jaini, as quoted above, suggests a more nuanced approach,51 inwhich Rama (of the Ramayan. a) and Kr

s.n. a received unequal treatment

in the hands of Jaina poets:52 the Jainas admired Rama, and so depictedhim as a baladeva who attains a Jaina-style liberation at the end of hislife, whereas they disapproved of Kr

s.n. a,

53 and thereby saw to it that he(and by extension all other vasudevas) would go directly to hell.54

Whether or not this was the Jainasoriginal intention, and it very likelywas, the final shape taken by the Jaina Universal History ultimatelyresults in a fate for Kr

s.n. a that is, arguably, much superior to that of

Rama.

49See, e.g.,Winternitz (1983: 434),Glasenapp (1999: 134), andSumitra Bai and Zydenbos (1991:

260261).50See, e.g.,Upadhye (1983: 16) andCort (1993: 190).51Jaini (1993: 207208) accepts the (plausible but unproven) supposition that the Hindu epics

were originally pan-Indian heroic stories that were acceptable to all Indians, regardless of religionor creed. According to him, the composition of sectarian Jaina versions of the Hindu epics and

puran. as resulted from a hostile reaction to the Brahminic attempt to appropriate such worldlyheroes as Rama and Kr

s.n. a, sanctify their secular lives, and set them up as divine incarnations of

their god Vis.n. u.It is not at all certain that the Jaina versions specifically represent an indignantreply to an arrogant Brahminic appropriation of popular secular stories in the way that Jainisuggests; it is equally possible that the Jainas first encountered the stories of the Ramayan. a and

Mahabharataat a time when they were already thoroughly Brahminized, and the vais.n. avaHindutheological overlay was already firmly entrenched. For that matter, it is possible (though unlikely)

that the so-calledvais.n. avaHindu overlaywas a feature of the epics from the beginning.52In the words of Jaini (1993: 212), the Jaina authors were employing their discriminatorywisdom.

53AsJaini (1993: 220221) notes, on the basis of textual evidence, the Jainas seemed to be morefascinated by Kr

s.n. as father Vasudeva than were the Hindus, and this emphasis on Vasudeva may

reflect an attempt to deflect attention away from Krs.n. a.

54As avataras of Vis.n. u, of course, neither Rama nor Krs.n. a go to hell upon their deaths in

Hindu mythology. Nevertheless, the death of Krs.n. a in the Hindu tradition does have something of

an ignoble twist to it: Krs.n. a first witnessed all the warriors of his own dynasty slaughter one

another in a drunken brawl, after which he was mortally wounded through being shot in the footby a hunter named Jara. Upon his death, Kr

s.n. a immediately returned to heaven. It seems clear in

the Mahabharata that the ignoble nature of his death was due to his failure to prevent, and his

unethical conniving during, the Bharata war, and it is more specifically attributed to a curse laidupon him by Gandhar (Mahabharata11.25.41). For various accounts of the death of Kr

s.n. a in the

Hindu tradition, see Mahabharata 16.5, Vis.n. u Puran. a 5.37, Bhagavata Puran. a 11.3011.31, andPadma Puran. a6.252.



http://


Downloadedfrom


15/32

Krs.n. a and Mahavra in the Tris.as.t.ialakapurus.acarita

The most highly standardized and comprehensive Jaina Universal

History is found in Hemacandras twelfth-century

vet

ambaraTris.as.t.ialakapurus.acarita (TPC), or Biographies of the Sixty-ThreeIllustrious Beings. In this text, Hemacandra provides complete accountsof all sixty-three alakapurus.as of the current world epoch.

55 Manyearlier Jaina texts56 contained biographies of alakapurus.as, includingbaladevas, vasudevas, and prativasudevas, but no text gives more com-prehensive attention to the latter three than the TPC.57

As Dundas (1992: 20) has astutely commented, the [Jaina]Universal History in its widest extent gives the impression of being a

massive introduction to the biography of Mahavira.

So let us beginwith the biography of Mahavra. One of the interesting aspects of Jainabiographies is that, especially for prominent personages, the biographiesalways begin long before birth; that is, the biographies in the widersense usually include stories of past lives. In the case of Mahavra, morethan twenty of his past lives are recounted in the TPC, including hispast life as a man named Marci, who, according to the Jaina reckoningof time, lived untold millions of years ago.

The story of Marci (TPC 1.6.11.6.52) is fascinating.58 He was the

grandson of the first trthan. kara of the present epoch, R s.abha, and theson of the first cakravartin Bharata.59 Though he became a monk and

tried to follow the Jaina path, he did not have the belly for it. While he

55Hemacandras TPC may even be historically responsible for the sharp division between theseparticular sixty-three great men ending with Mahavra on the one hand, and later prominentleaders (gan. dharas) and monks of post-Mahavra Jainism on the other. SeeBruhn (1961: 10).

56For example, Vimalasris Pamacariya, Jinadasas vayaka-Crn. i, SanghadasasVasudevahin. d. i, Ravis.en. as Padmapuran. a, Haribhadras vayaka-T. ka, Punnat.a Jinasenas

Harivam. apuran. a (193031), lankas Cappan. n. amahapurisacariyam, Pus.padantas Mahapuran. a,theMahapuran. aof Jinasena/Gun. abhadra, DevendrasUttaradhyayana-T. ka.

57AsBruhn (1961) rightly suggests, Hemacandra took it as his main task to compile and editmaterial from previous sources (some of which are no longer extant), and though the literarycomposition was his own, it is likely that little of the basic content in the TPC was original toHemacandra. Nevertheless, his text was novel in its sheer comprehensiveness, especially in itssystematic treatment of thebaladevas,vasudevas, andprativasudevas.

58This story, which presents a past life of Mahavra as a heretic, is in sharp contrast to anotherwise analogous story in the Buddhist tradition (Conze 1959: 2024), where our Buddha, in apast life, met a previous Buddha named Dpankara, and was thereby set on the path toBuddhahood. Though one text in the Theravada Buddhist canon, the Pubbakammapiloti, doesrefer to twelve sins of the Buddha in past lives, at times resulting in re-birth in hell (Walters 1990),

Buddhists do not (to my knowledge) depict the Buddha, in any of his past lives, as a founder of aheretical sect.

59The story of R

s.abha and Bharata in the Bhagavata Puran. a, discussed above, omits the story ofMarci.



http://


Downloadedfrom


16/32

did not wish to continue the harsh ascetic lifestyle, he also did not wishto disgrace his illustrious family. In the end, he decided upon the heresyof a not-so-ascetic lifestyle, which is described in terms suspiciously

similar to Buddhist practices.60 Eventually, he met a man namedKapila,61 who had likewise rejected R

s.abhas ascetic teaching and who

wished to follow Marcis path. He initiated Kapila and made him hisown follower. From that time forth, there has been heresy among men-dicants(TPC 1.6.52).62 Thus, Mahavra, in his past life as the hereticMarci, may well be considered the founder of Buddhist and/or Hinduascetic lineages, a role that bares a striking resemblance to Vis.n. us falseavatarabeing the founder of the heretical raman. ic traditions.

Not long after Marcis story is told, R

s.abha enumerated the names

and vital statistics of the twenty-three future trthankarasof the presentepoch (ending with Mahavra), and then the eleven future cakravartins(TPC 1.6.2761.6.337). Finally, R

s.abha related the names of the

twenty-seven future vasudevas, baladevas, and prativasudevas thatwould appear (TPC 1.6.3381.6.369). Bharata then asked R

s.abha

whether or not there was anyone present in their assembly who wasdestined to become atrthankara, and R

s.abha told him that Marci was

destined to become the twenty-fourth trthankara Mahavra. On thepath from Marci to Mahavra, we are told, Marcis soul would be born

in Bharataks.etra as Triprs.t.ha, the first vasudeva of the present epoch,

and thence as a cakravartin named Priyamitra in a realm outsideBharataks.etra (TPC 1.6.3731.6.379).

63 As avasudeva, Mahavras soul

60Briefly, he chooses to shave his head, rather than pluck his hair out; to refrain fromdestruction of gross life only rather than both gross and fine life; and to wear reddish-browngarments rather than white. These practices made him, according to the text, neither an asceticnor a householder (na sam

.yato na ca gr.h; TPC 1.6.24), which is the typical Jaina attitude

toward Buddhist monks.61

This is surely intended to refer to the founder and promulgator of the Sankhya tradition ofHindu philosophy, who is likewise named Kapila. While the connection between Kapila andSankhya is not made explicit here, it is when the stories of Mahavras past lives are retold in TPC10.1.25ff (Johnson 1962: 37).

62adks.ayat sa kapilam.

svasahayam.

cakara ca|parivrajakapakhan. d. am.

tatah. prabhrti cabhavat||.

63According to Jaini (1979: 32), Marcis sinful pride resulting from this prediction resulted inhis being the last of the twenty-four trthankaras. In theKalpa Stra (1979), there is no mention ofR

s.abhas son Bharata (by name), let alone his grandson Mar ci, nor are any of Mahavras pastlives given. The chapters on R

s.abha and Bharata in Vimalasris Pamacariya (and Svayambhs

Apabhram.a Pamacaryu) do not include the story of Mar ci, likely due to the story ending long

before the birth of Mahavra. Punnat.a Jinasenas eighth-centuryHarivam.

apuran. a (9.1259.127)makes reference to Marci, but does not explicitly relate him to Mahavra (as this text too ends

before the birth of Mahavra). Here, Marci is identified as the grandson of R s.abha, is said to havebeen overwhelmed by the rigors of the strict Jaina ascetic life and, out of the sin of pride(manakas.aya), promulgated an ascetic lineage (parivrad. vratapos.an. a), donned red garments(kas.ayam

.ves.am), carried a staff (ekadan. d. ), washed (uci), and shaved his head (mun. d. ). Jaina



http://


Downloadedfrom


17/32

(like that of Krs.n. a) was destined to be reborn in hell. In fact, of the

nine vasudevas of the current epoch, Triprs.t.ha was the only one to

descend to the lowest (i.e., the seventh) level of hell (TPC 4.1.886).64

Krs.n. a, upon his death, fell only to the third level of hell (TPC8.11.164).The salient point, of course, is that the unfolding of Mahavras path

takes him from heretic (Marci) to vasudeva (Triprs.t.ha) to cakravartin

(Priyamitra) to trthankara.65 Not all trthankarasare explicitly said tohave been vasudevas in past lives, nor will all vasudevas necessarilybecome trthankaras. Nevertheless, Mahavra is the most importanttrthankara in the Jaina tradition, and he was at one time, just likeLaks.man. a and Kr

s.n. a, avasudeva.

Furthermore, despite their sojourn in hell, the vasudevas Laks.man. aand Kr

s.n. a too have greater things in store. Laks.man. as soul will travel

an arc similar to the soul of Mahavra: he will eventually be reborn as acakravartinoutside Bharataks.etra and, unlike Mahavra, will become inthe same lifetime a trthankara (TPC 7.10.2437.10.244).66 Kr

s.n. a,

though not explicitly named as a future cakravartin, is predicted tobecome the twelfth trthankara of Bharataks.etra in the coming worldepoch (TPC 8.11.52).67 The future of Kr

s.n. as brother Baladeva is

texts treating the wider biography of Mahavra (e.g., vayaka-niryukti and its commentaries), aswell as texts covering the entire Universal History (e.g., the Cappan. n. amahapurisacariyam oflanka, the Tris.as.t.ilaks.an. amahapuran. a of Jinasena/Gun. abhadra), do include this episode,sometimes twice (once in connection to the lives of R

s.abha and Bharata, and again in connection

with the Mahavracarita itself). In TPC 1.6.3801.6.383, Bharata goes to pay homage to Marciupon hearing the prediction of his future trthankara-hood, though he makes it clear that nohomage is due on account of his future status as either a vasudevaor cakravartin. For a discussionon the Marci episode in various Jaina texts, seeBruhn (1961: 1921).

64triprs.t.ho gat saptamm

.narakavanim. Two of the twelve cakravartins likewise, as a result of

their unrighteous rule, descended to the seventh hell: Subhma (TPC 6.4.109) and Brahmadatta(TPC 9.1.600).

65

The notion that heretics and evil-doers can and will find their way to liberation is notextraordinary in the Jaina tradition. Typically, the prativasudevas, though reborn in hell after beingkilled by the vasudeva, will rise again to attain liberation. Even the first heretic in Mah avrascongregation, Jamali, the equivalent of the Buddhas Devadatta, is predicted to attain liberationwithin five future births. SeeDundas (2006).

66It might be argued that being granted trthankara-hood in a region outside Bharataks.etra isslightly less illustrious than inside Bharataks.etra.

67On the issue of Krs.n. as impending (though improbable) trthankara-hood, Jaini (1993: 229)

states: There is also unanimous agreement that Krs.n. as birth as a human being will take place

immediately as he emerges from hell and that it will be his last birth, the birth as a T rthankara. Ifthis were the case, then one must wonder when Kr

s.n. a could have accumulated those sixteen

meritorious acts that are considered prerequisites for birth as a Trthankara. It seems that Kr

s.n. as

destination to become so exalted a person as a T rthankara was the result of an exceptionalconcession made by the Jaina acaryas in an effort to rehabilitate Kr

s.n. a and make this assimilation

irrevocable. Jaini, however, does not offer any particular motive for such a concession orrehabilitation. As noted above, the Jainas do display a tendency to rehabilitate heretics and



http://


Downloadedfrom


18/32

extraordinary as well. Unlike baladevas in general, and especially theeight baladevas that preceded him in the current epoch (includingRama), Baladeva did not attain emancipation upon death, but rather

was reborn as a god in heaven.68 According to Mahavra, he is destinedto become the thirteenth trthankara of Bharataks.etra in the comingworld epoch.69

In other words, among the epic heroes Rama, Laks.man. a, Baladeva,and Kr

s.n. a, Rama is now the only one not destined to become a

trthankara. Even Sta, Ramas faithful wife, is predicted to attain emanci-pation as a chief disciple (gan. adhara) of atrthankara. Perhaps more sur-prising yet, the trthankara of whom she will be a disciple is none otherthan the soul of Ravan. a, the evil prativasudevawho had abducted her in

the JainaRamayan. a.70 The liberation of Rama, which originally may havebeen intended to appear glorious in comparison with Kr

s.n. as descent to

hell, seems now to have become somewhat prosaic by comparison.71

When the Universal History is read chronologically, the soul ofMahavra is, of course, avasudevalong before Kr

s.n. a is born. As scholars,

evil-doers, perhaps indicating that no amount of past wickedness need be an insurmountableobstacle to liberation. The Jaina texts are not unanimous on the names of the twenty-four futuretrthankaras (e.g., compare the list in the third appendix to the Samavayanga Stra (1982) (verses

7477) with Harivam.

apuran. a 60.55860.562 and TPC 10.13.18610.13.200) nor which of themKr

s.n. a and Baladeva will become; the important point is that they are unanimous that Kr

s.n. a will

indeed become a trthankara in the coming utsarpin. (e.g., bhavis.yattrthakrd dharih. ;

Harivam.

apuran. a62.63). For a discussion of Jaina trthankarasin the comingutsarpin. , seeBalbir(1991).

68Reference to the fact that Baladeva was the onlybaladeva of the current world epoch not togain liberation, but rather to be reborn in Brahmaloka, is found as far back as the third appendixto theSamavayanga, verse 67.

69There seems to be some confusion as to Baladevas ultimate fate in the TPC. While Mahavrapredicts that he will become the thirteenth trthankara, named Nis.kas.aya, in the comingutsarpin. (Johnson 1962: 347), Neminatha (the twenty-second trthankaraof the present avasarpin. and firstcousin to Kr

s.n. a and Baladeva) suggests something different. He predicts that Baladeva will attain

liberation in the congregation of thetrthankaraAmama, i.e., Krs.n. a in a future birth. Speaking toKrs.n. a, Neminatha states of Baladeva: trthanathasya te trthe sa moks.am upayasyati (TPC

8.11.54).70This was predicted by Rama himself, upon his attaining omniscience (tatah. ravan. ajvah. sa

trthanatho bhavis.yati| vaijayantac cyutas tasya bhavgan. adharo bhavan|| TPC 7.10.241).71If we consider, (1) that the births ofvasudevasare heralded by seven auspicious dreams (half

as many as herald atrthankaraor cakravartin) while that of thebaladevasis accompanied by onlyfour, (2) that both Rs.abha and Mahavra listed the names of the future vasudevasbefore the futurebaladevas, and (3) that the general pattern of baladevas attaining liberation upon death wassuspended for Baladeva alone, seemingly for the purpose of granting him eventual trthankara-hood, then thebaladevastatus of Rama in the Jaina Universal History is comparatively pedestrian.Jaini (1993: 230) suggests that Rama, unlike [Baladeva], was deemed virtuous enough to attain

moks.a in that very life,and thus Baladevas rebirth in heaven should be taken as an indication ofhis lack of virtue. According to Jaina doctrinal principles, this may be true, but I still contend thatBaladeva is eventually granted a more exalted position than Rama in the grand scheme of Jainamythology.



http://


Downloadedfrom


19/32

however, we are justified in viewing all of the alakapurus.as (exceptingMahavra and perhaps Parva) as literary creations that could bemanipulated to fit into a pre-arranged pattern. In this context, there

seems to be no question that Krs.n. a is accorded a very high standing inthat he becomes, in a sense, a Mahavra-in-the-making, whileMahavra becomes a Kr

s.n. a-of-the-past. Given the Jaina belief in an

eternal universe stretching to infinity in both past and future, the onlysignificant difference between Kr

s.n. a and Mahavra is that they entered

the stream totrthankara-hood at slightly different points in time.

The Jaina Krs.n.a as Founder of Hindu Kr

s.n.a-Bhakti

There is, in the TPC, another bold similarity between Krs.n. a and

Mahavra. As mentioned above, the heretic Marci, a past life ofMahavra, is said to be the founder of the tradition of lax ascetics inIndia, likely referring to Buddhists and Hindu ascetics. In a similarfashion, the Jaina Kr

s.n. a is said to have been the founder of the Hindu

Krs.n. a-bhakticult,

72 thereby providing Hindus with yet another deludedreligious practice. Hemacandra tells us that, upon his death, Kr

s.n. as

brother Baladeva became a god in heaven (rather than attaining eman-

cipation); as a god, he visited Krs.n. a in hell with the hope of cheeringhim up. But Krs.n. a had his own ideas. He told Baladeva to return to

Bharataks.etra, and to

display me holdingcakra, arngabow, conch and club, wearing brightyellow clothes and riding on a celestial car with the Tarks.ya-banner,and display yourself, far and wide, holding pestle and plough, wearingdark blue clothes and riding in a celestial car with the Palm-banner. Itshould be declared throughout the world that the imperishable Ramaand Kr

s.n. a roam here at will,thereby erasing our previous humiliation.

(TPC 8.12.80-82)73

Baladeva agreed to this plan of elevating their reputations, and did justas Kr

s.n. a suggested. He also spoke to the people of Bharataks.etra,

proclaiming:

72As Jaini (1993: 230231) notes, a similar (and earlier) version of this story is found inHarivam

.apuran. a65.

73tad gaccha bharate cakraarngaankhagadadharam | ptavastram.

tarks.yaketum.

darayer mam.

vimanagam || nlambaram. talaketum. langalayogradharakam | darayeh. svam. ca sarvatravimanastham

.pade pade || yatha hy anavarau ramakr

s.n. au svecchav iharin. au | iti loke praghos.ah.

syat prvanyatkarabadhakah. ||. This illusion suggested by Krs.n. a tallies well with the typical

Hindu conception of Krs.n. a and Baladeva.



http://


Downloadedfrom


20/32

My good people! Having made auspicious images of us, you mustworship them respectfully, with the conviction that we are theSupreme Deities. We alone bring about creation, preservation and

destruction

we came here from heaven and return to heaven at ourwhim. The city of Dvavaka was constructed by us, and was destroyedwhen we wished to leave. There is no other creator or destroyer, andwe alone can grant heaven. (TPC 8.12.848.12.86)74

The people, successfully duped by Baladeva, carried out his com-mands, and being a god, Baladeva had the ability to reward them withgreat good fortune75 for their devotion. And thus, according to Jainas,did the Hindu tradition of Kr

s.n. a-worship begin in the land of India!

This account of the deceitful origin of Krs.n. a idols is certainly slander-ous from the Hindu point of view, but it may have been adapted from asimilar story told on the origin of idols in the Hindu puran. as.

76

Whatever the case, it is clear that the Jainas were not content merely toadapt Kr

s.n. a to their own purposes; they felt compelled to explain why

Hindus mistakenly worship him as an eternal demiurgic god.77

Mahavra as an Epic Hero

As alluded to above, the creation of the baladevavasudevapra-

tiv

asudeva triads seems to have been, in part, a device by which theJainas could incorporate the epics Ramayan. a and Mahabharata/Krs.n. a-

cycle into their mythology. At the center of the Jaina versions of theseepics is the cosmically ordained battle between vasudeva (e.g.,Laks.man. a, Kr

s.n. a) and prativasudeva (e.g., Ravan. a, Jarasandha). By

establishing the vasudevasas epic heroes, and by proclaiming Mahavrato have been a vasudeva in the past, Jainas have, by association, madeMahavra into an epic hero. As the vasudeva Tripr

s.t.ha, the soul of

Mahavra takes part in a battle with his prativasudeva rival Avagrva

(T

PC 4.1.108

4.1.762). In Hemacandras text, this episode is dwarfedin size by the stories of the Ramayan. aand Mahabharata. Nevertheless,

the story of Triprs.t.ha and Avagrva is the third-longest account of a

vasudeva-prativasudevabattle, and itself forms a sort of mini-epic.

74evam ce ca bho lokah. krtva nau pratimah. ubhah. | prakr

s.t.adevatabuddhya yyam

.

pjayatadarat || vayam eva yatah. srs.t.isthitisam

.harakarin. ah. | vayam

.diva ihayamo yama ca

svecchaya divam || nirmita dvarakasmabhih. sam.

hrta ca yiyasubhih. | karta harta c a nanyo

sti svargada vayam eva||.75pratimarcakakartr

n. am.

mahantam udayam.

dadau sa surah. (TPC 8.12.88).76

See, e.g.,Brahma Puran. a47.77To add to our list of stories explaining how various religious practices originated, Jaini (1993:222224) recounts a Jaina explanation, found in Harivam

.apuran. a 49, of how the misguided

Hindu blood sacrifices to the goddess Vindhyavasin first began.



http://


Downloadedfrom


21/32

The Jainas, it seems, were intent upon crediting Mahavra withevery grand deed, both worldly and ascetic, of which a soul is capable.By the time Hemacandra was finished, the soul of Mahavra had been

to the highest heaven and lowest hell, had been a heretic, had stoodfirm in battle as a vasudeva, had stood firm in righteous sovereignty asa cakravartin, and finally had stood firm in ascetic discipline in orderto achieve the highest position possible for a soul.

FURTHER ADAPTATIONS IN JAINA MYTHOLOGY

In the process of making Krs.n. a their own, the Jainas were

forced to contend with a constellation of theological issues relatingto the Hindu Krs.n. a, all of which required some reworking in order

to fit comfortably in a Jaina context. I will address only three. First,for many Hindus, Kr

s.n. a was a soteriologic figure in a manner that

Jaina doctrine could not accept. Second, the association betweenKr

s.n. a and Vis.n. u, or more pointedly, the fact that Kr

s.n. a was con-

sidered by Hindus to be an earthly incarnation of the celestial godVis.n. u, did not fit with Jaina ontology. And third, the pervasiveHindu mythological motif that forces of good/gods/order and evil/

demons/disorder are locked in an eternal struggle, a struggle inwhich the Hindu Krs.n. a actively partook, did not rest easily with

the radically individualistic law of karma promulgated by the Jainaphilosophers.78

Krs.n. a as a Soteriologic Figure

The Hindu notion that Vis.n. u-Krs.n. a is a supreme deity, the

creator, sustainer, destroyer, and re-creator of the universe, deservingof uncompromising love and devotion, and who will, out of

returned affection and devotion, bring ultimate salvation to hisdevotees, has no place in the Jaina universe (despite the fact that,according to Jainas, it was Kr

s.n. a himself who was the source of

this erroneous belief). No such being can or does exist in the Jainacosmos: even trthankaras can only guide the faithful to the path ofsalvation. Gods do exist in the Jaina universe, but they are merely aform or station which any soul, with sufficient good karma, maytemporarily attain.

78The law of karma is operational in the Hindu tradition as well, though it is somewhatmitigated in the devotional traditions where God (e.g., Vis.n. u, Kr

s.n. a) can bring about the salvation

of his devotees regardless of their karmic circumstances.



http://


Downloadedfrom


22/32

In adapting Krs.n. a to Jaina doctrine, the Jainas made use of a

shared character to set the theological record straight: Krs.n. a was a

man, not a god, and fa

j am acad relig 2011 geen 58 89

Documents